Skip to main content
Log in

Benchmark policies for utility-carrying queues with impatience

  • Published:
Queueing Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Men and jobs alike are characterized by a single trait, which may take on categorical values according to given population frequencies. Men arrive to the system following a Poisson process and wait till jobs are assigned to them. Jobs arrive to the system following another, independent, Poisson process. An arriving job must be assigned to a waiting man immediately, or be discarded, ensuing no gain. An assignment of a job to a man yields a higher gain if they match in trait, and a lower one if not. Each man waits a limited time for a job and leaves the system if unassigned by that time limit. It is stipulated that a man who arrives first has priority to either accept the pending job, or to pass it to the next man, who makes a similar decision. The last man in the line takes the job, or it is discarded. The individually optimal policy for each man is defined by some critical time for accepting a mismatched job. We solve for the critical times, depending on the mens’ place in the queue, and obtain expressions for the ensuing optimal value functions of this system, for expected gain. The model originates from the utility-equity dilemma in assigning live organs to patients on the national waiting list. The paper reports numerical comparison of the above policy with alternative ones, for several performance measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alagoz, O., Maillart, L.M., Schaefer, A.J., Roberts, M.S.: The optimal timing of living-donor liver transplantation. Manag. Sci. 50(10), 1420–1430 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Avi-Itzhak, B., Levy, H.: On measuring fairness in queues. Adv. Appl. Probab. 36, 919–936 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avi-Itzhak, B., Levy, H., Raz, D.: Quantifying fairness in queuing systems: principles, approaches, and applicability. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci. 22, 495–517 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bendersky, M., David, I.: Deciding kidney-offer admissibility dependent on patients’ lifetime failure rate. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 251(2), 686–693 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bendersky, M., David, I.: The full-information best-choice problem with uniform or gamma horizons. Optimization 65, 765–778 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bertsimas, D., Farias, V.F., Trichakis, N.: Fairness, efficiency, and flexibility in organ allocation for kidney transplantation. Oper. Res. 61(1), 73–87 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bertsimas, D., Patterson, S.S.: The air traffic flow management problem with enroute capacities. Oper. Res. 46(3), 406–422 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bertsimas, D., Shioda, R.: Restaurant revenue management. Oper. Res. 51(3), 472–486 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boxma, O.J., David, I., Perry, D., Stadje, W.: A new look at organ transplantation models and double matching queues. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci. 25(2), 135–155 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. David, I.: A sequential assignment match process with general renewal arrival times. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci. 9, 475–492 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. David, I., Yechiali, U.: A time-dependent stopping problem with application to live organ transplants. Oper. Res. 33(3), 491–504 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. David, I., Yechiali, U.: Sequential assignment match processes with arrivals of candidates and offers. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci. 4, 413–430 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. David, I., Yechiali, U.: One attribute sequential assignment match processes in discrete-time. Oper. Res. 43, 879–884 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Derman, C., Lieberman, G.J., Ross, S.M.: A sequential stochastic assignment problem. Manag. Sci. 18(7), 349–355 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hildebrand, F.B.: Methods of Applied Mathematics. Courier Corporation, North Chelmsford (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Karlin, S.: Stochastic models and optimal policy for selling an asset. In: Arrow, K., Karlin, S., Scarf, H. (eds.) Studies in Applied Probability and Management Science. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kaplan, E.H.: Tenant assignment models. Oper. Res. 34, 832–843 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan, E.H.: A public housing queue with reneging and task specific servers. Decis. Sci. 19, 383–391 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Karsu, Ö., Morton, A.: Inequity averse optimization in operational research. Eur. J Oper. Res. 245(2), 343–359 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kendall, D.G.: Some problems in the theory of queues. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 13, 151–185 (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Krasnosielska-Kobos, A.: Multiple stopping problems with random horizon. Optimization 64, 1625–1645 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Polyanin, A.D., Manzhirov, A.V.: Handbook of Integral Equations. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1998)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Ross, S.M., Kelly, J.J., Sullivan, R.J., Perry, W.J., Mercer, D., Davis, R.M., Washburn, T.D., Sager, E.V., Boyce, J.B., Bristow, V.L.: Stochastic Processes, vol. 2. Wiley, New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shabtai, E.L., Ben-Haim, M., Rosin, D., Kuriansky, J., Gazit, E., Ayalon, A., Shabtai, M.: Social and utilitarian considerations for allocating organs within a national organ sharing system: a computerized simulation model for policy decision making. Israel Med. Assoc. J. 5, 618–621 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stadje, W.: On multiple stopping rules. Optimization 16, 401–418 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Su, X., Zenios, S.: Patient choice in kidney allocation: the role of the queueing discipline. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 6(4), 280–301 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Su, X., Zenios, S.: Patient choice in kidney allocation: a sequential stochastic assignment model. Oper. Res. 53, 443–455 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. UNOS. Accessed 20 Feb 2019. https://unos.org/policy

  29. UNOS. Accessed 20 Feb 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134750

  30. Zenios, S.A.: Modeling the transplant waiting list: a queueing model with reneging. Queueing Syst. 31, 239–251 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zenios, S.A., Chertow, G.M., Wein, L.M.: Dynamic allocation of kidneys to candidates on the transplant waiting list. Oper. Res. 48(4), 549–569 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael Deutsch.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deutsch, Y., David, I. Benchmark policies for utility-carrying queues with impatience. Queueing Syst 95, 97–120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11134-019-09642-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11134-019-09642-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation